Back to the point. The England team will be significantly stronger for Chase's inclusion. He is eligible under current citizenship rules.

The Aussies have crowbarred players in for years and nobody has bleated. George Peponis, Benny Elias, Willie Mason, Karmichael Hunt, Brad Thorn, Israel Folau, Antony Kaufusi, Petero Civoniceva, Lote Tuquiri, Aku Uate etc etc

Playing them at their own rules won't hurt.

Exactly why it's a pile of s***e.

agreed. Quite the opposite of the question opening the topic, the Aussies would laugh at us for being good sports and not playing the best available talent, on the other hand a bit of Aussie ruthless will to win in the team would not go amiss in the short term.

The only thing which should prevent a player representing a country is if he has already had a senior cap for another country. As long as that is followed I am happy with any player with residency/passport etc representing whichever nation they currently reside in.

I can accept the inclusion of players who have an English parent or who were born on this soil and then moved to another Country.

But including players who have simply lived here a few years is IMO a farce. I strongly suspect that Rangi Chase had never considered himself English until he realised it was probably his best chance of playing International Rugby.

Sorry but I don't care what they do in Cricket or in Australia.. I care about what we do in RL. Personally I find it pretty desperate and depressing that we need to resort to such things to put out a competitive International side.

To be competitive you've got to be playing on a level playing field. So playing to the rules in the same way the aussies and kiwis have been doing I don't see as desperate and depressing.

As I say, I'm not that interested in what they do in Australia. If Chase had been born in NZ to Kiwi parents but spent the majority of his life living in Enlgand then I could just about accept that he saw himself as English and should be eligible. Which Aussie/Kiwi International player has made the test side after only a few years in the Country?

The inclusion of Chase is something I simply cannot support. Which is a shame because I had looked forward to attending some of the Four Nations games over here.

This is completely my viewpoint. 3 Years should not mean your English (unless your obviously a 3 year old)!

You don't belong here, we don't want you here. In fact the only thing keeping you here is your cat.

As the British are a mongrel nation it would appear none of us are eligible.

It is not offensive. Why can no one understand the difference between being English born and a British citizen? I take offence at you making out i am racist!
I would have thought the whole point of international sport was pitting one people against another. One of my best memories of international RL was see the NZ Maoris nose to nose with the Samoans doing their Hakas at Workington in the 2000 World Cup. If i was racist i would hardly travel a two hundred and odd mile round trip on a Wednesday night to watch two teams of foreigners play each other would i? My point is that you can not become English as there is no English state. The state is British, of which you can become a British citizen. Does this make things clearer?
If an English born player moved to New Zealand and fulfilled the criteria he would be able to play for the Kiwis but NOT for the NZ Maoris, does this mkake my point clearer?

But nobody is saying Chase is English. They are just pointing out that under the international eligibility rules, he is allowed to play for England.


What? The whole country is a pile of s***e? A tad extreme that, I'd say


Do you think I'm fecked if Theresa finds out we don't have a cat?

So Chase is fine to play for GB but not England?

Yes, if he becomes a British citizen.
At no point in this thread have i wished to offend anyone, i was only trying to point out the difference between being ethniclly English and a British citizen. If i have caused offence please accept my apollogies.

Your dogs don't count as they were born in a stable.

You've argued that one, we probably disagree on that one. But you also said on this thread:



Adding that someone who has spent nearly all their life here & plays for his home town club should not be allowed to play for his country. That is where your views are bonkers.

Before we get to that, I am English born (unless St. Luke's hospital is abroad) and I asked you whether I would therefore qualify to play for England, so far you have not directly replied.

You did indirectly reply with:

As you feign mystification why that seems offensive, the obvious meaning would be that I am a foreign dog, because although born in an English stable, my parents were still foreign dogs. So I, and my progeny, forever all foreign dogs will be.

That is what you said, and you have not explained if that is not what you meant. Guru's made a good point about people crying the 'racist', yet you are trying to hide behind pretending to take phoney offence over a term I did not use. I have spelled out for you why what you wrote is offensive on the face of it. I will be interested to see your reply.

You have also ignored the issue of just how far back you need to have a 100% "English" bloodline in order to be "English". 5 generations? 10? I would bet a lot of money that going back very few generations you yourself would find a "forriner" amonst your ancestors and therefore on your own spurious definition, you are not "English". How funny is that?


Irrelevant. Thousands of Romans travelled to the Coliseum to watch Christians being fed to lions. I don't think it necessarily makes them Christians fans.


Sadly not. I was born in England and so ask whether I am English, and ask whether I would qualify to play for England. Instead of more dissembling and faux indignation, why can't you just provide a reasoned reply? Preferably one not referring to animals.

You have had an apology for any unintended offence caused but i feel that you are now turning this debate into a witch hunt as this is obviously a matter upon which we disagree strongly. I feel this is part of the problem with the city of Bradford that no one dare discuss such matters without people getting on their high horse about things. As i said you have had a public apology and as far as i am concerned that should suffice unless the mods tell me otherwise.

I'm quite happy to see Chase and Heighington join the squad. Aussies have done it for years and its not like other English sports teams haven't done it:

England Cricket Team has included South Africans and Irish
English Rugby Union has included South Aftricans, New Zealanders and South Sea Islanders
English Football Team has included Jamaican and Canadian players

No-one has mocked them, in fact if anything they've been more successful and still no-one has said a thing about it.

If Australia have picked Mason, Tuqiri, Uate and Civoniceva along with many others then why shouldn't we?

This.

To be honest I've no problem with people wishing to choose which country they want to play for, after all there are long standing qualification rules about parentage, residence etc which are the same for all. No, it's the ones who want to swap and change I disagree with; if you've played for Wales then that should have burnt your boats for England etc etc. I know it's more a Aussie, Kiwi, Islander thing but it's still wrong, imo.

This debate is getting ridiculous !!!

At the end of the day Rangi Chase should not be included in the England squad. He is not English and never will be.
If he was born over here or have english parents then that's a different story. The guy is working over here on a Visa for god's sake !!! People can come on here with the racist but this is a fact !!

Another one who confuses eligibility for England with "being English". In his case the relevant criterion appears to be living here for over 3 years. You should be arguing against the international eligibility rules. As it is, he doesn't [ineed[/i to be English to fit the criteria.


Apology accepted, if you did not intend to offend, but far from turning the debate away from anything, I am right on the money, as I was born here yet as I understand it in your eyes I am not English and would not qualify to play for England in your eyes. I am asking if that is your view. It is just a simple question, but is central to the issue the thread is about.

If Rangi Chase has children here, and they are brought up here and play all their rugby here, would they be English?

What about, in turn, their children?

It would seem to be you who dares not discuss it. I could not get on my high horse, since according to you, I presumably could not have a horse (unless I borrowed it from an Englishman), but leaving that aside, I am not here to meekly accept your declaration that I and my children are not English, or would not qualify to play for England, but to challenge you to explain why, and I have pointed out serious flaws in your superficial views.

If your answer to my simple question is 'no', then you need to explain what your qualification criteria on ancestry would be. This is putting you on the spot, to THINK about your views, and explain the logical basis (if there is one).

I suspect you can't put forward any sensible criteria but you might surprise me. It is of course entirely up to you whether you try, but if you don't, then I'll just have to conclude that your post was ill-considered bollox; you are saying a player has to be "English" but you cannot or will not define what, in terms of ancestry, "English" is.

Why wouldnt they be ???? They were born here so are English by right. Rangi Chase is completely different - he played for the Maori's last year, exiles this year. He has no English parents, wasnt born here and works here on a foreign visa !!

End of story !!